52 
Mai, C., discusses the composition and production of pharmaceutic 
and chemical preparations. — Chem. Ztg., Cothen, 1906, v. 30, pp. 
169-173. 
Kochs, J., presents an enumeration and some description of the 
new remedies that were introduced during the year 1905. — Arb. a. d. 
pharm. Inst. d. Univer., Berl., 1906, pp. 107-112. 
For a list of scientific synonyms of new remedies, see report on 
new remedies appended to Proc. Xew York Pharm. Ass., 1906, pp. 
19-51. 
A contributor to the “ Therapeutics " column quotes the report of 
the committee on newer remedies of the Xew York Pharm. Ass. in 
regard to a number of incompatibilities. — J. Am. M. Ass., 1906, v. 
47, p. 1052. 
NEW REMEDIES. 
Francine, Albert, quotes Frank Billings as follows: 
To the rational physician, mixtures even with a known formula are objection- 
able, for disease is never quite the same in different individuals and never 
quite the same in its different stages.— J. Am. M. Ass., 1906, v. 47, p. 9S4. 
Jacobi, A., discusses “ Proprietary medicines." — Ibid., v. 17, pp. 
977-978. 
Dock, Geo., presents a paper on “ Proprietary medicines and their 
abuses." — Ibid., v. 17, pp. 978-982. 
Cabot, Richard C., comments on “ The physician's responsibility 
for the nostrum evil." — Ibid., y. 17, pp. 982-983. 
An editorial asserts that a quiet inquiry conducted by the Ameri- 
can Druggist has revealed the fact that, contrary to expectations 
aroused by the crusade of the American Medical Association against 
proprietary medicinal compounds, the number of such compounds 
prescribed by physicians was greater during 1905 than in the year 
preceding. — Am. Druggist, X. Y., 1906, v. 18, p. 59. 
Mason, Frederic S., presents a paper on the standpoint of the 
manufacturer of special and proprietary preparations in which he 
discusses proprietaries abroad, some historical notes, and the differ- 
ence in the status of the galenical and of the chemical proprietary. — 
Ibid., y. 18, pp. 65-66. 
Diner, P. J., discusses the proprietary medicine from the phar- 
macists standpoint. He concludes that there are a number of valu- 
able preparations of proprietary origin, which the physician has a 
right to use in his daily practice, but that it is also the duty of the 
physician to differentiate between an ethical proprietary and a fake 
with a high sounding name. — Ibid., v. 18, pp. 66-67. 
Fairchild, B. T., asserts that all manufacturers of modern and 
original products had found it necessary to adopt the trade-mark, 
but, he points out, the adoption of the trade-mark gave no right or 
